2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The director of the regional tax office of △△△ has conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff from May 6, 2009 to July 21, 2009, and confirmed that the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 2.45 million (hereinafter referred to as “the dividend of this case”) from the Plaintiff on or around January 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a joint project implementation investment agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”) with △△△△-dong multi-family housing development project (multi-family housing) (hereinafter referred to as the “multi-family development project”) in △△△-dong, △△△-dong. The Plaintiff’s representative director’s wife of thisCC (the Plaintiff director of this company), and ASEAN (the Plaintiff’s auditor of the Plaintiff company) determined that the dividend of KRW 2.45 million (hereinafter referred to as “the dividend of this case”) was the actual dividend of the Plaintiff’s development project in 208 and calculated the Plaintiff’s profit of this case for 2008 business year.

B. On August 1, 2009, Defendant 1 notified the Plaintiff of the change in income amount of KRW 374,056,580, which was calculated as stated in paragraph (a) to the head of the △△△△△△△△△ on August 1, 2009, and Defendant 1,184,400,000, which was the amount calculated by deducting the withholding tax from the dividend of this case added to the Plaintiff as stated in paragraph (a), was notified of the change in income amount of KRW 1,184,40,000, which was the amount calculated by deducting the withholding tax from the dividend of this case, as stated in paragraph (a), to the Plaintiff, and then disposed of the amount of KRW 88,30,00,00 from this B (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

C. On October 29, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Plaintiff’s request was dismissed on March 15, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence 1, and the whole pleadings

chapter 6

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff entered into the instant agreement with △△, however, is a loan of the legal nature of KRW 5 billion paid to △△△, and the plaintiff was fully paid the loan principal and paid interest of KRW 9% per annum on July 20, 2004, and completely withdrawn from the instant development project. Even if the legal nature of the above amount is an investment loan, the plaintiff was fully paid the full amount of the investment loan and completely withdrawn from the instant development project. In addition, since the plaintiff did not enter into an agreement with △△, the plaintiff did not have a title to receive the investment profit from △△, the plaintiff did not have any right to receive the investment profit from △△.

HeaA, thisB, through an arrangement separate from the △ side, becomes a shareholder at a cost by acquiring the shares of △△, and the dividends of this case received by HuA and thisB are acquired as a shareholder of △△, so the actual income earner of the dividends of this case is HuA and B.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case shall be revoked as it is illegal since the plaintiff is deemed as the actual income of the dividends of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On January 20, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a joint project implementation investment agreement (the instant agreement) with ○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○”).

(2) In accordance with the instant agreement, the Plaintiff: (a) KRW 2 billion on January 20, 2004; and (b) February 20 of the same year; and (c) March of the same year.

3. On March 22 of the same year, the sum of KRW 5 billion, including KRW 1 billion, was paid to △△.

(3) On February 25, 2004, △△△△, a representative director, a representative director of the △△△△△△, transferred all rights related to the instant housing development project to △E, and around that time, △△ was appointed as the representative director of △△△△.

(4) On July 16, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with △△△△-dong, 77-2, 77-7, 78-1, and 78-2, each of the land (the total area of 8,245 square meters) owned by the Plaintiff, and the land (the total area of 8,245 square meters) with 8 billion won.

(5) When the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract as referred to in the above Paragraph (4), the Plaintiff entered into a provisional registration with 5 billion won of the invested principal at the time of deposit of the investment principal (PF realization time) and entered into a special agreement stipulating that the Plaintiff shall enter into a share transfer agreement with 35% of the shares as a corporation carrying out the instant development project and transfer the shares to the Plaintiff or to the person designated by the Plaintiff and register as a director of the executing corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant special agreement”).

(6) On July 16, 2004, Do governor purchased shares of 600 million won (10,000 won per share) from Do governor 10,000 won (10,000 won per share) from Do governor 35,00 won (10,000 won per share) on the same day. Do governor 1 purchase shares of 45,500 won per share from Do governor 35,000 won (10,000 won per share). Meanwhile, Do governor 10,500 shares acquired by this B and Do governor 10,000 shares constitute 35% of the total number of shares (30,00 shares).

(7) On August 5, 2008, insurance companies paid 650,000,000 won remaining after deducting 215,60,000,000 won from 865,60,000 won as dividend, and 534,400,000 won from HuA on August 19, 2008; and 161,70,000,000 won deducted from 1,050,000 won as withholding tax, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 3 through 6, 16 evidence (if there is a number, the number shall be stated) and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) First, we examine the legal nature of the instant agreement concluded between the Plaintiff, ○○ and △△, and what is the legal nature of KRW 5 billion paid by the Plaintiff to △△.

On the other hand, the following facts and circumstances revealed by the above facts, i.e., ① the agreement of this case, instead of investing KRW 5 billion in the development project of this case, is the main content that the plaintiff acquires 35% of shares in the development project of this case and if the development gains occur, the development gains shall be distributed according to the ratio of shares; ② Article 3 of the agreement of this case provides that the development gains shall be owned according to the ratio of shares; ② Article 11 of the agreement of this case provides that the investment profits shall be paid for the investment profits; ③ the name of the agreement of this case is the "joint investment agreement", and ③ it is reasonable to view the agreement as an investment agreement even if it is based on the literal interpretation of the terms such as shares, investment conditions, investment goods, investment amount, and investment profits.In light of all circumstances such as rights and obligations of the parties under the agreement of this case, distribution of profits, settlement method, etc., it is clear that the agreement of this case is an investment agreement, and the amount paid by the plaintiff to Do.

The plaintiff asserts that he lent 5 billion won to △△△, but as long as the plaintiff paid the above money to △△ in accordance with the agreement of this case, which is an investment agreement, it cannot be viewed as a loan, so the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

(2) The key issue of the instant case is whether the substance of the instant dividend that the HuA and the B received from △△ was the investment return that the Plaintiff received with respect to the instant development project.

In full view of the facts of recognition and evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff sold 7-2 and 3 parcels of △△△-dong, △△△-dong, which were owned in the instant development project site, to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff designated, and entered into the instant special agreement with the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff to have 35% shares of △△-dong, and accordingly, the Plaintiff acquired 35% shares of △-dong, the representative director of the Plaintiff, HuA and ASEAN, who is the wife of △△-dong, and the Plaintiff acquired 5% shares of △-do. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of shares to the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the said sales contract without any specific reason for △△-dong to transfer the shares to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s representative director of △△-dong, asked the Plaintiff to acquire shares of △△-dong, but it is difficult to understand the Plaintiff’s acquisition of shares to the Plaintiff’s 5% shares to secure the Plaintiff’s shares of △-dong, regardless of the Plaintiff’s statement at the tax authorities.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no title to receive investment returns since he did not enter into an agreement with △△ to receive investment returns in the instant development project while receiving the investment principal from △△ and selling the Plaintiff’s land within the instant development project to △△, but the Plaintiff’s return of KRW 5 billion to △△ was in accordance with the instant agreement (Article 4). However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he voluntarily given up an opportunity to receive investment returns and withdrawn from the instant development project even though having recovered the investment principal, is difficult to understand and that he voluntarily given up an opportunity to receive investment returns, and that he sold the Plaintiff’s land within the instant development project to △△△ does not support the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the instant development project, and the instant agreement is the title to receive investment returns. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the dividends of this case paid by DoA and DoB from △△ as part of the investment return received by the Plaintiff as a result of the Plaintiff’s investment in the development project of this case, and there is no error of law in the dispositions of this case on the same premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.